Robert E. Bernosky for State Assembly The Obvious Choice - The Sensible Voice

California is one of many states that are significantly crippled due to the combination of high unemployment, high taxes, and unsustainable spending budgets.  Just fixing one item no longer is enough, the solutions have to be comprehensive, long lasting, and predictable.

High unemployment drains our finances as individuals go on unemployment, increase their use of government services, and do not contribute to the state tax coffers.  High taxes drive healthy businesses and wealthy individuals to other states and other countries, depriving California of their tax payments and investment in businesses, and their spending which leads to others working.  California's too high spending budget has created a monster that eats more and more of our tax dollars but produces nothing.

Solutions have to take everything into account.  How do you increase tax revenue and decrease spending without raising tax rates?  Get people working by getting companies and individuals to increase their investment in California.  That can be accomplished by lowering a company's cost of doing business in California.  Lower tax rates, less regulations, less red tape to go through.  There are companies that have shovel-ready projects that make a lot of sense, but are bogged down in hearing after hearing of boards, commissions, and municipalities.

Solutions must be long-lasting.  Businesses do not like uncertainty.  The state legislature and governor have to create an environment that does not keep a CEO thinking that the rug is going to be pulled out from him or her with each budget cycle of the state or everytime a special interest group wants to pass a ban on other protection based on "junk" science or without considering the ramifications of some action.  The judiciary must become more business-friendly too by taking the economic effects of business-adverse rulings into account.

Don Miller from the Santa Cruz Sentinel writes in his own blog today: "In the 28th Assembly District, Watsonville Mayor Luis Alejo used his party and union backing to cruise to an easy victory in the Democratic primary. He’ll be an overwhelming favorite against Republican Robert Bernosky in November, if only because of party registration and financial support".  While at first blush this is a let down to read after my 15% margin in the primary, this is also great news.  Here's why:

Union backing and financial support (which the majority of will come from special interests and not individuals) do not create jobs, do not fix schools, and does not lower taxes!  These are the issues that the 28th District is facing and research shows is at the top of mind!  What will win me this seat is my ability to logically address these issues.  As I have a successful track record of creating private sector jobs, being in manufacturing and service businesses, and turning around a school district from being one of the worse in the state to one of the best, I can connect the dots between promises made and a history that proves that I can get it done.  My opponent cannot and will not be able to do that!

Let's get to work and put me in the Capitol!

There is a lot of attention being paid to this race on the Democratic side, most of all on the  "independent" expenditures and the attack ads the Democrats are sparing no expense with.  I do think that this type of campaigning is revolting, unpatriotic, unprofessional, and is harmful to California.

We need the most competent person in the Capitol that has the experience and background to be an effective legislator.  If someone's ability to win is simply because they were able to dig up more bad things about their opponent, they will not be able to provide any leadership in the 28th District or Sacramento.

By and large, the special interest money that is being poured into this race is to keep the status quo.  The special interests do not want to fix anything in California because they benefit from our broken state and don't care if taxes and fees are raised or important programs are cut, as long as their "programs" do not change.

I am running to fix this situation and get California on a path to prosperity, people working, kids educated, water flowing, and a realistic budget.  I have the experience, background, and track record to get things done.  Please vote for me.

I was on the air this morning with Mark Carbonara discussing the election and "Rex", a caller posed a question that I said I would have research further.  The question involved how easily a non-partisan individual could get on the ballot compared to a partisan candidate (one affiliated with a party).  The context of Rex's question was whether it was fair that someone affiliated with a party could get on the ballot with a relatively few  amount of signatures compared to a non-partisan candidate.

A quick visit to the very helpful ladies at the San Benito County Elections office on my way home from the KION's studios got me the answer that someone would have to gather 3.0% of the registered voters in order to run for Assembly (4,667 signatures) as a non-partisan candidate.

Regarding the fairness issue, I think that because we have a party-oriented political system, it is okay to have a reasonable threshold to make sure that all candidates are viable.  The primary election system works fairly well to reduce the number of candidates to one per party in the general election.  Those not wanting to identify themselves with a party have to show that they have at least some base to start with by gathering signatures.  The alternative would lead to potentially a very large number of candidates in the general election without any vetting whatsoever, at great expense to the state and confusion to the voters.

Rex, if you want to discuss this further, please post a comment!  Most of all, if you want to run, please start getting those signatures!  Participation is key to a successful democracy!

Republicans have had this seat before, and we can again in 2010.  All indicators are in the country and California that the voters want people who will think before they vote on a bill.  Party lines no longer work.  Voters will put the person in office that has a proven track record and can demonstrate they will continue to work hard and smart.

This is good news!  No matter who wins the Democrat Primary on June 8th, they will not be able to legitimately compare themselves to me with my track record and ability to put together good bills or dismantle exisiting ones that harm us.  Where does this confidence come from?  First, all of the candidates have been speaking at various forums and I do not hear anyone else telling of any successes while in their respective offices or careers!  Secondly, the special interest money is being poured in large amounts into the Democrat's race for this seat.  Do the people really think that the recepients are not going to be beholden to the special interest's behind those huge amounts of money?  Of course they are!

Not me.  I am running to represent YOU, the people who are casting ballots and want change in the state of California that benefits YOU.  When I get involved in something it does change, for the better.  My opponents cannot say that, and it will become apparent in the race in November!

Please choose your candidate very carefully!  Look for their experiences and what they have done and what is motivating the candidate to run.  What has their career been?  What happened where they were working?  Have they held positions in the community?  What happened during that time?  Were they leaders or followers?  Imagine this person occupying a seat in the legislature.  Does their history suggest that they are going to be proactive in correcting what is wrong in Sacramento and the State, or just be taking "taking it all in" while the lobbyists tell them what to do?

I am very proud of my track record in all aspects of my life.  Have there been failures along the way?  Of course, but I learned from them and used the experience to be successful in family, career, and public service.  I have been married for 21 years to Jennifer (my and hers only marriage), we are raising 3 wonderful kids who are thriving in the public school system.  I have been the chief financial officer of Applied Chemical Solutions, Midas Software, ClearVox Communications, Grey Zone Software, Inclinix, Lyon Clinical Partners, and others that were successful private sector companies as measured by revenue growth, bankability, and return on investment to investors.  I have structured and raised capital private capital for emerging and distressed companies, arranged mergers & acquisitions, and performed management turnarounds that resulted in jobs being created, capital gains, and innovation.  I ran for a school board, and won, and worked tiresly to make the school district being from one of the worst to one of the best in the state.  When my community asked me to run for our local water company board of directors, I won and was able to improve our infrastructure so that frequent outages were eliminated.  When the agricultural water was turned off to my property and our community and was told there was nothing that could be done, I found a way to supplement some of the lost water.

When there is a community issue, I get involved.  I talk to decision makers and those affected and get educated and act accordingly.  When a developer was planning a new city in our county, I became concerned about how it would affect the students in our school district and fought to have our County Committee on School District Organization properly established so that school district territories could be properly negotiated.

These are just samples of what I have done, how I have shown leadership, and how I have worked with others.  Just saying that you have been something does not mean you got anything done!  I have.  Please know that if I am elected, I will be doing my job and making things better.  My resume will not simply say that I was a member of the Assembly, but will say that I got things done that truly benefited you and the State of California.  

One of the biggest challenges one has on the campaign trail is explaining what a member of the Assembly does and how can they help the current situation of unemployment.  Listen, you heard it here and from me first: One can legislate opportunity, but not success.

What that means (and actually I have to give credit to Carl Chase of Hollister for giving me the quote) is that an Assembly Member can write laws that set the stage for someone's success, but cannot actually make the success occur (because when the government does something it is usually slow, too expensive, and ultimately not want the public really wants).  Alternatively,  a member of the Assembly can work to repeal laws already on the books that hinder success, like laws that make California unfriendly to business and therefore cause a loss of jobs.  Need examples of legislative opportunities?  Visit my papers link and look at "Accentuate the Positive".  There you will find several examples of bills in committee right now that will create jobs and spur investment in California.  That's not spending the government money, but helping the private sector primarily through reduced regulations.

I may write a more formal position paper later on, but in the forums I have been participating in the question has come up about whether the Legislature should require only a simple majority (>50%) or a super  majority (2/3) to pass a budget.  Currently a super majority is required.

It would be a huge mistake to go to a simple majority.  California is a liberal state, but conservatives play an important role in balancing the tax & spend mentality of the Democrats against the traditional fiscal responsibility of the Republicans.  In a simple majority scenario, government would be sure to grow, become more expensive, and the situation we are in would become much, much worse.

A better plan is for liberals and conservatives to truly strive to work together and "sell" each other's plans to "the other side," compromise on certain points but overall have a better California.  Incremental change is better than no change.

One thing that absolutely will not work is the "We won" attitude expressed by President Obama where he was justifying his hard line stance on liberal issues.  That is not a plan for California either. 

UPDATE: Solargen has provided me with much information on the project and I have had some telephone calls with various personnel.  However, I do not have much information on the company, their financial plan and that of the project.  Until I do, it will be difficult to take a stance on this particular project.

I am, however, encouraged about the prospect of private enterprise exploring this type of endeavor, with private capital and no risk sharing by the government at any level. 

I have received some telephone calls recently about Solargen Energy's Panoche Valley Solar Farm,  listened to some concerns about it and was asked to give my opinion of it.  I have told people that all I know about it is what I have read in the paper and that I would contact Solargen Energy and find out more.  Since then, I have sent in a request on their web site to have them call me and never received any communication from them.  I have called and left messages with Solargen's business officer and chief financial officer.  I have also called the voice message line for the EIR portion and asked for a return telephone call.  As of this writing I have not heard back.  In the meantime I will research what I can from their application and wait for them to call me.  The fact that I cannot reach a human at their company in the middle of the business day does not bode well for my impression of them, but you never know!

Wow!  I cannot believe it has been a month since my last post.  That shows you how busy the campaign season has been.  Many events to attend, so little time to blog.

Anyone who has heard me speak knows that I am a firm believer that the footprint of the government of the State of California must shrink.  I often get asked how that can occur.

The first place to look will be after the November elections, when the new elected governor gets to make their 3,000 appointees.  You can check out the details at this website: http://gov.ca.gov/appointments/list.  Now I am sure many of the boards and commissions are really important and those on them earn their stipends and travel expenses.  But a quick look at them begs the question if they are all necessary.  Remember, to the state, it is not only the cost of those boards and commissions, but all of the regulations and rules they put on people and businesses that stifle freedoms and job growth.  There is also a cost to administer them by the state of California.  Let's see if we can cut that list at least by a third, just to start!

Moving on, have you ever dealt with a state, county, or munincipal office and ever wonder why the technology boom left them or they have practices that the private sector would never tolerate?  I cannot tell you how many times I have heard clerks in different departments try to explain to a caller what their e-mail address is!  "It's mjones@ca.frescounty.deptfg.us.gov.  Let's try again its deptfg not depfe..." so on and so forth.  Little things like this are huge time sinks and cause departments to become bloated.  Another example is when an employer or a candidate(!) has to process paperwork in more than one county.  Every county and city's procedures are different, even though one is applying for the same thing.  Standardize procedures, rules, and regulations.  Use computers to share information and filings!  Reduce costly positions this way!

We have too many rules and regulations period, which all have to be administered, and many are duplicative.  We have processes that don't make sense.  The state licenses plumbers for example.  When a plumber puts in a new gas line for a hot water heater, for example, they also apply for a permit for the homeowner.  Because there is a permit, a building inspector ultimately comes and inspects, in theory to make sure the licensed plumber did it right.  (Yet the individual who does work himself, and does not apply for permit but is the highest risk for not doing the installation correctly, never gets the inspection).  When you are a business, take these simple examples and multiply them by 100 to understand the hoops they have to jump through.

Finally, the big Kahuna is government doing work that the private sector is better off doing.  Whether it is operating a golf course, an airport, performing road maintenance, cleaning government owned buildings, if it is a government employee doing it, it is much higher than if the private sector were doing it.  Right along with that is how many government employees it takes to do a job.  The University of California has almost as many administrators as professors and instructors.  How can that be?  This requires serious research.  Don't get me wrong, there are stellar government employees who are worth every dime they get.  But, the common jokes about the bureacracy happen for a reason.

Get Rid of Agencies!

Privatize Wherever Possible!

Bring Costs In-Line With the Private Sector

I hope that I am not going to disappoint anyone with tonight's topic, but I have decided that I am definetly a different candidate than the others. Here goes: I am substance over form.  Don't get me wrong, I always need to polish things up a bit, but I simply am not going to say things that sound good, but really cannot backup with the facts or the reality of the situation. 

I had the pleasure of hearing Meg Whitman speak last night (with Mitt Romney introducing her). Wow.  She has me sold!  Her message is clear and simple: fiscal reform.  We are aligned.  After I got to stand on my soapbox for a little while with the other guests at my table,  then heard Meg speak, people thought I had written her speech.  I wish!  She brought up the little talked about but huge problem of pension obligations by the state, discussed shrinking government by eliminating agencies, many of the 3,000 governor appointees, reducing capital gains taxes and eliminating the start-up tax and regulations that just stifle entrepreneurship.  She says she is not there to make friends, and I believe her. 

Teachers work really hard.  Not only do they have to prepare lesson plans, lecture, plan out homework and tests, then grade, but they also have to deal with the emotions of their students, manage the classroom behavior, and most have some sort of other duties having to do with the school community.  For the most part, I believe that they truly enjoy their jobs.  But then there are wrenches that get thrown into the works.

Learning must be a partnership between the teacher, the student, and the parents.  That is not obvious to all.  If you are a parent, expect your child to have homework every single school night.  Also expect that your child will be taking tests and quizzes, and that they will be returned to the child with a grade on them.  Many teachers put grades online in real time.  There are many, many families that get this.  The "system" works.  But what about those that don't get it?  What about the student whose learning is limited to from the time school starts until it ends, and literally gets no encouragement from home, does no homework, and generally falls behind?

My experience has been that teachers try their hardest to reach the child and the parents, but there are practical limits to what they can do, because there are other children in the classroom that are thriving and need attention too.  That is where the administration comes in.  They can intervene and initially find out what is going and offer guidance to the student and the parents.  In some cases they can have a more forceful conversation if warranted.  Some schools have implemented programs to reach those kids where the school feels that they can provide an adequate amount of extra reinforcement on the campus to get the student to thrive.  Counties have alternative schools that actually help students in a variety of personal situations that cause some to eventually thrive.

The theme I am promoting here is that we need to establish the partnership with the teachers, administrators and parents, which means we need flexability in the relationship.  This is where the unions come in.  My desire is for them to promote the idea of helping find practical solutions and stop the party-line rhetoric and grievience filing.  I know that sounds more negative than I intend to, but teaching is just like any other business.  It should change overtime and adapt to the current environment.  Administrators, the same goes for you too.  Let's focus on the student, be flexable, and win over the public court of opinion.

I have seen this work in a particular school district, and know it can work in others.  When you combine it with ending all the unfunded mandates that have been thrust on the school system that in reality do nothing to improve the student (here is where I come in as Assembly member), you can have success.

I make no apologies for it, but I am not going throw teachers under the bus.  I met with a group recently that clearly did not want to hear any good news.  Their anger about California's education system was very clear.  When I began to suggest that education was not entirely broken, they stopped me in my tracks and stopped listening.  It was bad.  Forget that I have 3 children in the public school system and live in a rural agricultural area with hispanics making up the majority of the population.  Oh, lest I forget, my wife has been a teacher for 15 years and is now a principal.  I also have been a school board member.  All these folks wanted to hear was that public education was awful.

To set the record straight, there are bad teachers, administrators, students, and budgets.  But they are not all bad and those bad things are problems that can be dealt with.  Quite openly, people want to put the blame on the teachers and their unions.  The teachers want to put the blame on the admnistators and the state.  The state wants to blame the unions.

Before being completely shut down by this group, I was trying to explain that there are great teachers, administrators, and students that are getting a great education from California Public Schools.  We know this from SAT and ACT scores, and acceptances into prestigious schools around the country.  As I volunteer at various schools from time to time, I see great examples of kids thriving.

So what is the problem?  Not being an educator, but making an educated guess, the problem is that only a fraction of children and parents at an early age are ingrained with the notion that education is important and does not begin and end with the school day.  My next post will address how we work on this very important issue.

Betsy McCaughey, chairman of the Committee to Reduce Infection Deaths, writes "No Member of Congress asked citizens 'Would you rather make your own car payments instead of bailing out the auto industry or funding National Public Radio?'.  Ms McCaughey's point is well taken and is appropriate for the context of her article that she wrote.  However, I would say that in broad strokes, the people are asked about such matters and asked to respond with their vote.

Government spending, in general, is just too big these days and world is just coming to grips with it now.  Internationally, the current crisis in Greece where they, like California, is literally at the end of its fiscal rope.  Just like the distressed companies that I have a world of experience of watching get close to their demise, but being able to turnaround once its stakeholders understand the only way to be saved is through reform, our Mediterranean friend is coming o grips with reality.  The difference between California and Greece though is that we are somewhat less bureaucratic (!) and we have the ability to create private sector jobs very quickly.  We also do not have deficits to deal with (we must balance our budget every year).  However, we do have debt obligations for all of those bond measures that made the ballots, so  the road to reform will not be smooth. 

It is a responsible voice that needs to be heard in the Capitol, and I intend to be the one speaking with it.

Aside from asking for your vote, let me ask you to leave an answer on this blog to this question: Would you rather make decisions about how you spend your money or would you rather give it to the government and let them decide for you?

I always start my day with the printed edition of the Wall Street Journal, then the online versions of The Freelance (San Benito/Santa Clara Counties),  the Santa Cruz Sentinel).  I get the Salinas Californian on my daily trip to the Hollister Starbucks.  (Sarah, why could you not have answered Katie's question?).  Today's papers highlight the problem that Republicans are going to have in the next 2 elections; how are we going deal with the problems from the past year, especially the incredible spending and deficit building of the Obama administration?

Fortunately for Californians, our budget must balance each year, although we surely will be impacted by our friends at the Federal level as they tackle deficit spending.  The answer is jobs, jobs, and jobs.  Almost all problems quickly become less or go away completely when everyone is working, making an income, spending, and yes, paying taxes.  Private sector jobs are infinitely better for all than those in the public sector.

So California needs to peel back its over burdensome regulations and taxes on small business, which will encourage businesses that are already here to expand, will cause people to start new businesses, and will attract others to move to or back to California.  We need to get that water flowing again to agriculture so that the farms and ranches can hire back the 40,000 workers it has laid off in the past year in the Central Valley and Coasts.  If elected, that is exactly what I am going to focus on.

The finest Starbucks in the world, on Airline Highway in Hollister and managed by the very capable Lisa de la Cruz, is a great place to not only enjoy a great coffee but also to meet people to talk about California.  I had the opportunity to have an impromtu town hall meeting to discuss certain issues, including the high-speed rail being proposed for California.  The Obama administration has awarded California $2.25 billion towards a total projected cost of $40 billion to $60 billion.  That got our meeting thinking about who would be riding this rail system?  As a businessman who has traveled extensively, as well as a family man with family in Southern California, I just don't see myself or any large amount of people traveling between the Bay Area and Los Angeles on a regular basis that could justify spending billions of dollars on.  Aside from Thanksgiving, anyone who drives I-5 or 101 has pretty much open road, an indicator that not that many people travel between the North and the South.  We all agreed that if rail systems are going to be built, they should be where large populations reside and where train use is more likely to be used and even possibly cash flow neutral.  Don't get me wrong, I love the federal government sending us money, but not for something that we do not need and comes with the implied commttment for us to spend at least 20 times the amount, and probably many more times that.  It does not make sense and I do not understand why we would saddle ourselves with the costs at ths time.  If anyone does understand why such a costly program should move forward, please let me know!